Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Mountainmike]

Pure projection as you are the one trying to tell us what science is.

The evidence is that there is life on earth. It had to come from somewhere. Science can not investigate the supernatural but it can investigate the origins of life. Apologetics can not.

You do not have a reasoned argument you have creationists' belief that abiogenesis is too complicated exactly like the ancient Greeks believing that lighting was too complicated.

And there is no shame in believing that Zeus did it.

There is belief in created life. Fixed it for you.
Forensic evidence ≠ scientific evidence for the simple reason that there is no scientific basis for most forensic procedures.

You are entitled to your creationists beliefs but if you want to argue against science why don't you do it with experts and scientists where you can make an impact?

I have seen arguments similar to yours discussed many times at Peaceful Science.

In addition to not knowing limits of science.
You clearly don’t know what forensic science is either!

It’s hard to progress from there.

It fascinates me you have no respect for eg what pathologists and cardiologists say about heart tissue and blood , or what DNA labs say about DNA! - these are expert scientific witnesses whose labs are accredited to GLP which is way past the stabdards of most academia! You have odd ideas about science!

We agree life came from somewhere.
As evidence of how, all abiogenesis believers of your type have , is a hideously complicated minimum cell and pure conjecture On bits of a process. No evidence it ever happened, where or how or when. you believe it. Good for you.

I’ve been studying the speculation about protocells and OOL for 50 years. Was in new scientist in the late seventies. When did you start?

 

[Bradskii]

Thats not why I believe in creation which is faith. Happy to admit it.
But it’s good to know there is evidence too.

If your argument was 'There's so much we don't understand' then I'd be in a race with you to make up the longest list of the most aspects of science that are still undetermined. Nobody is going to argue with you. Most of us would support you.

But your short comment above gives the lie to your position. You haven't discovered evidence for creation and compared it to any science that contradicts it and balanced one against the other. You have accepted creation, as you say - on faith, and therefore discount anything that counters it and actively search for anything that supports it. You call yourself a scientist but that is contrary to any type of science that anyone could conceivably do.

And following on from that, you will accept any evidence for any miracle that supports your position. The details are irrelevant. The possibility for fraud inconsequential. Any genuine investigation is worthless because (and this is the clincher that renders any possibility of a reasonable discussion moot) your faith trumps any and all evidence to the contrary.

Your posts are nothing more than telling us what we already know - that science does not yet have all the answers. And that you place your faith on inconsequetial investigations of so called miracles. Which are a complete waste of time discussing because you wouldn't change your mind under any circumstances.

 

[Bradskii]

If Genesis cannot be taken literally what other parts of the Word are not to be taken as such?

I don't know. You seem to know. Can you give us some examples?

 

[Frank Robert]

In addition to not knowing limits of science.
You clearly don’t know what forensic science is either!

You are entitled to your belief.

It’s hard to progress from there.

It fascinates me you have no respect for eg what pathologists and cardiologists say about heart tissue and blood , or what DNA labs say about DNA! - these are expert scientific witnesses whose labs are accredited to GLP which is way past the stabdards of most academia! You have odd ideas about science!

I don't know what your are raging about. If you know about scientific evidence from pathologists and cardiologists that pertains to origins of life then share it with us so we can evaluate it.

We agree life came from somewhere.
As evidence of how, all abiogenesis believers of your type have , is a hideously complicated minimum cell and pure conjecture On bits of a process. No evidence it ever happened, where or how or when. you believe it. Good for you.

I haven't made any claims that scientists have scientific evidence for abiogenesis so stop making things up.

I’ve been studying the speculation about protocells and OOL for 50 years. Was in new scientist in the late seventies. When did you start?

If you are so sure of yourself take my challange and discuss your beliefs with the experts.

 

[Mountainmike]

If your argument was 'There's so much we don't understand' then I'd be in a race with you to make up the longest list of the most aspects of science that are still undetermined. Nobody is going to argue with you. Most of us would support you.

But your short comment above gives the lie to your position. You haven't discovered evidence for creation and compared it to any science that contradicts it and balanced one against the other. You have accepted creation, as you say - on faith, and therefore discount anything that counters it and actively search for anything that supports it. You call yourself a scientist but that is contrary to any type of science that anyone could conceivably do.

And following on from that, you will accept any evidence for any miracle that supports your position. The details are irrelevant. The possibility for fraud inconsequential. Any genuine investigation is worthless because (and this is the clincher that renders any possibility of a reasonable discussion moot) your faith trumps any and all evidence to the contrary.

Your posts are nothing more than telling us what we already know - that science does not yet have all the answers. And that you place your faith on inconsequetial investigations of so called miracles. Which are a complete waste of time discussing because you wouldn't change your mind under any circumstances.

Wrong. On a scientific front, I accept things that stand scientific scrutiny -
unlike abiogenesis which is pure speculation.

Eg I refute the bleeding statue of civatecchia because DNA evidence showed it was a fraud.

I accept the bleeding statue of cochabamba because forensic investigation by pathologists showed it stood scienitric scrutiny , with no mechanism for fraud. Ever heard of it?

The investigations are far from inconsequential .

The consequences of the so called eucharistic miracles being real is they blow Darwin out of the water by his own falsification criterion. That is serious.

A number of independent pathologists have a consensus view of them.
One non religious pathologist who investigated several actually stated they were “ compelling evidence of created heart tissue” there is no apparent mechanism by which fraud is possible. This is consequential.

had you considered for even 30 seconds they might be real?
If you didnt you are not a scientist. Evidence is evidence wherever it leads.

Did you investigate THEN decide ( the scientific way)
Or did you decide on the basis of Your atheist faith? .

There are phenomena so alien to the founding axioms of science it can never explain them How ever long you wait.
Transubstantiation is one.

A prophecy fulfilled is another. Time arrow, chaos & entropy.

Consciousness remote from the brain is another. It blows the idea that life and consciousness are just a chemical process out of the water, and with that it blows abiogenesis from simple chemicals out of the water as explanation for life.

 

[Bradskii]

...there is no apparent mechanism by which fraud is possible.

This is about the most naive statement it's possible to make. Your MO is apparent. Dump any prospective 'miracle' that has been proved to be without basis, go all in on any that have not and say that fraud is impossible.

What nonsense...

 

[JohnGill]

That the Yellowstone hot spot burned it's way from the Oregon/Nevada border to it's present location over a very long time is not in dispute. The earth has left clear evidence of that journey of multiple eruptions along the way. The many eruption locations are well studied and mapped. There is no dispute that they are related to the Hot Spot now under Yellowstone Park. You have said that "Jesus is actually the “science”. So my question that has not been answered is "How does the Science of Jesus" account for the multiple eruptions of the Yellowstone hot spot over a long period of time. It's looking through the lens of the "Science of Jesus" that I ask my question.

In order for something, anything to be declared a scientific fact repeated/repeatable and OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE incidents, actions, things need to occur
Otherwise your saying you BELIEVE thus and such about something
Science cannot say anything about the Creation because no scientist was there, only Triune God was there, and I as a Christian believe the Genesis account of Creation based upon faith, FAITH in the eternality and veracity of Jesus Christ stating clearly throughout the New Testament historical account of His life on earth that the Pentateuch is factually, historically true
Thus the statement Jesus is the “science”
He was there, He is the Word God used to create everything from nothing
Again, to be clear, I believe all of this by faith
Evolutionists believe in evolution by faith too because unless one was there at the evolutionary processes that occurred one cannot speak scientifically of evolutionary processes, and if the theories of evolutionary processes aren’t ongoing from provable theoretic origins, well, again, one is faith believing it all
Turn to Jesus for the salvation freely offered in Him

 

[Bradskii]

Again, to be clear, I believe all of this by faith
Evolutionists believe in evolution by faith too because unless one was there at the evolutionary processes that occurred one cannot speak scientifically of evolutionary processes...

I flew to the UK a few months ago. I wasn't there when they designed the plane. Or when it was tested. And I wasn't there to see the pilot being taught to fly. I wasn't there to see him qualify. I wasn't there the night before we left to make sure he wasn't drunk or gdoing drugs. I wasn't there in the control tower...well, you get my drift.

Now you have faith. Religious faith. Which is 'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' If you want to so mangle the English language that you can say that I also had faith in the plane and the pilot to get me safely from A to B, then you need a few lessons in English composition.

What I had was a very reasonable expectation. Based on 'things not seen'. But confirmed by countless processes whereby planes don't fall out of the sky and they always get from A to B (with any exceptions proving the rule). There is a galactic amount of information that I could access that would prove to me that my flight was going to be safe. Without ever actually 'needing to be there'. So why don't we cut out this nonsense that someone needs to be there in person to know that something is true.

Can we say that something is true beyond any doubt? No, actually we can't. And science doesn't do that. Maybe you weren't aware that there is an unstated rider to all scientific declarations. The scientist will say 'Man evolved from earlier life forms.' But the unstated, but always present rider is still there. So the statement t should always be read as 'As far as we know, from the evidence we currently have...Man evolved from earlier life forms.' I hope that clears that up for you. Because to say that, for example, evolution is not true 'because you weren't tbere' is as nonsensical as saying 'the plane won't get to London because you weren't there to see it being designed, tested etc'.

It's a remarkably dumb argument in the first instance. And in the second only serves to indicate a lack of knowledge of the scientific process. I'd advise against using it.

 

[JohnGill]

I flew to the UK a few months ago. I wasn't there when they designed the plane. Or when it was tested. And I wasn't there to see the pilot being taught to fly. I wasn't there to see him qualify. I wasn't there the night before we left to make sure he wasn't drunk or gdoing drugs. I wasn't there in the control tower...well, you get my drift.

Now you have faith. Religious faith. Which is 'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' If you want to so mangle the English language that you can say that I also had faith in the plane and the pilot to get me safely from A to B, then you need a few lessons in English composition.

What I had was a very reasonable expectation. Based on 'things not seen'. But confirmed by countless processes whereby planes don't fall out of the sky and they always get from A to B (with any exceptions proving the rule). There is a galactic amount of information that I could access that would prove to me that my flight was going to be safe. Without ever actually 'needing to be there'. So why don't we cut out this nonsense that someone needs to be there in person to know that something is true.

Can we say that something is true beyond any doubt? No, actually we can't. And science doesn't do that. Maybe you weren't aware that there is an unstated rider to all scientific declarations. The scientist will say 'Man evolved from earlier life forms.' But the unstated, but always present rider is still there. So the statement t should always be read as 'As far as we know, from the evidence we currently have...Man evolved from earlier life forms.' I hope that clears that up for you. Because to say that, for example, evolution is not true 'because you weren't tbere' is as nonsensical as saying 'the plane won't get to London because you weren't there to see it being designed, tested etc'.

It's a remarkably dumb argument in the first instance. And in the second only serves to indicate a lack of knowledge of the scientific process. I'd advise against using it.

The entire repeatable, observable history of aviation is why we feel safe flying
Observable, observed, repeatable, repeated
The hypothesis behind flying was originally put a frame with wings and other materials and hardware and try it
There were obviously initial failures but as the process progressed basis aeronautical principles were discovered, attempted, and became repeatedly successful

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

You realize I hope that you justed validated what I wrote in post #1251:

and

Faith is faith you either believe or you do not. God does not need me to defend Him nor is it my place to prove to you His existance just as you can continue to throw out scientific propaganda I do not hold true. You can go by what you claim to be truth and hard facts I am not entertaining this any longer. We are at an impass and you can continue in your belief and I will continue in mine. I guess we will find who was right when all is done.
S atan
C reating
I maginative
E volutionary
N otions
C oncerning
E verything
S aid by God

 

[Hopes]

You know what I always wondered? If I was to think in terms of creatures evolving then why isnt there any of the half way creatures? Like half human and half monkey? There are none of those for any creature God created. Also why is nothing evolving now? I mean I have rabbits and they breed, well, like rabbits and have lots of babies. Why dont they ever have anything other than a rabbit? Lots and lots of generations of rabbits later and they still give birth to rabbits.

Then theres the things like eyeballs. You cant get an eyeball to work with only part of the parts evolved. Either all of its there or it wont work so how did that just evolve? Or ears for that matter. Some things just have to have all their parts or they are useless.

But to what I think your asking. This is my theory. I think all creatures on this planet are somewhat simular because inorder to survive on this planet they pretty much would have to be. I mean take food stuff. Thats all pretty simular for the mammals at least. You would have to have a simular digestive tract to eat and survive. I do realize some animals eat grass and we dont but we do eat wheat which I do believe is a type of grass.

It dont really say in the Bible why God made us alike but thats what I am thinking.

 

[Bradskii]

...as the process progressed basis aeronautical principles were discovered, attempted, and became repeatedly successful

As were scientific principles discovered and rediscovered.

Maybe you think that if a process takes a million years then we can't be sure it happened unless we start another process and wait another million years. That's not how science works. It forms a theory to explain why it worked as it did. And that theory will contain individual proposals that can be tested. Repeatedly. The parts of the theory can be tested instead of waiting a million years to make a simple observation. Because an observation in itself is not proof of how the process worked. You need multiple observations to be reasonable sure that you know how it worked. Not, as I said, with absolute certainty. So just observing an evolutionary process that takes a million years would need hundreds of millions of years to get even a reasonable chance of certainty.

That's why theories are proposed. They can suggest how the process takes place at various points and say that if part of the process X is true then we should find evidence that supports X elsewhere. Multiple times. We should be able to repeat the findings in applicable areas. Using different methods. Using different tools. And have those results tested. Repeatedly. And if they stand up then we can state that X is true. Bearing in mind the rider, so you should always read that as 'As far as we know, from the evidence we currently have...X is true.' Then we move on to Y.

In so doing we build up a solid base of evidence that is tested and retested continuously. And we build on it. So that we are sure that the foundation is as strong as it can be. The base knowledge is always being added to. And if a fault is found then it affects everything that follows from it. So the process is slow. No-one wants to spend a lifetime running experiments and investigating something that is found to be based on incorrect evidence previously obtained.

There's no faith involved. Just a galactic amount of evidence, tested, retested and tested again. Find a fault in any of the base assumptions and your name will be heralded through the ages.

 

[Bradskii]

Then theres the things like eyeballs. You cant get an eyeball to work with only part of the parts evolved. Either all of its there or it wont work so how did that just evolve?

I wonder why you simply didn't Google ' How did eyes evolve?' It would have got you enough information for you to spend the rest of the week investigating further: How the Eye Evolved | The New York Academy of Sciences.

 

[dlamberth]

In order for something, anything to be declared a scientific fact repeated/repeatable and OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE incidents, actions, things need to occur
Otherwise your saying you BELIEVE thus and such about something
Science cannot say anything about the Creation because no scientist was there, only Triune God was there, and I as a Christian believe the Genesis account of Creation based upon faith, FAITH in the eternality and veracity of Jesus Christ stating clearly throughout the New Testament historical account of His life on earth that the Pentateuch is factually, historically true
Thus the statement Jesus is the “science”
He was there, He is the Word God used to create everything from nothing
Again, to be clear, I believe all of this by faith
Evolutionists believe in evolution by faith too because unless one was there at the evolutionary processes that occurred one cannot speak scientifically of evolutionary processes, and if the theories of evolutionary processes aren’t ongoing from provable theoretic origins, well, again, one is faith believing it all
Turn to Jesus for the salvation freely offered in Him

Being that you have not answered my question in post #1143 , I'll repeat it. Hopefully you can give an answer this time around:

"How does the Science of Jesus" account for the multiple eruptions of the Yellowstone hot spot over a long period of time. It's looking through the lens of the "Science of Jesus" that I ask my question.

These eruption locations have been tested and verified repeatedly by the geologist studying the movement of the Yellowstone hot spot. I've visited the Oregon/Nevada locations.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In order for something, anything to be declared a scientific fact repeated/repeatable and OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE incidents, actions, things need to occur
Otherwise your saying you BELIEVE thus and such about something
Science cannot say anything about the Creation because no scientist was there, [CUT to remove preaching]

Do you think that one-off events can't be studied scientifically?

Events like the July 1994 collision of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter; the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake; the 1918 "Spanish" Flu outbreak?

This restriction you put on just isn't valid in science.

 

[GenemZ]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

The physical human body in many ways shares the same biological schematic. Heart, lungs, bowels, teeth, stomach. liver, bones, hair, skin, and on and on we go.

The physical body of man was designed by God to be functional like many animal bodies.

Its not man's body that was created in God's image. For the body is only a temporary biological vehicle for man's soul.

Animals have souls. Their souls are are hard wired for specific functions in their body.

With man? Its his soul that makes him above the animals, not his body. For we learn from the creation account that it was the human soul that was created male and female before being supplied their human body.

Its the "soul" of man that was created in the image of God.
Animal souls are generic souls.


grace and peace .........

 

[Mountainmike]

This is about the most naive statement it's possible to make. Your MO is apparent. Dump any prospective 'miracle' that has been proved to be without basis, go all in on any that have not and say that fraud is impossible.

What nonsense...

Yoj are the most unscientific person I have had a discussion with here.
You dismiss evidence out of hand , without even study, because of your faith alone.

You accept abiogenesis on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
I can’t challenge your evidence, you dont have any: but you believe it just the same.

As for the forensic evidence :
The best that anyone can do is dismiss the reasonable possibilities for fraud, “ beyond reasonable doubt “ is the criminal standard, or consider ways they could be recreated, which they cannot.

if you have suggestions let’s hear them.
It beat the myriad of scientists and pathologists , multiple independent teams and continents , that -unlike you - actually studied them.


Eg with EM , is there is known means of fake - that is - given all the resources of a high tec lab how would you recreate the samples? You cant.
Yet you suppose a few priests with no biological training can do what science cannot?

The cochabamba statue bled as filmed on continuous time stamped image, witnessed by many including multiplr hostile witnesses . It was CT scanned multiple times, so there were no passage ways. Nor was the blood, tissue and scab deposited, it appeared live on camera.

And yet the biology of the blood and tissue has no known process of fake,not least because the DNA is not that of any human fraudster. But it is human dna, shown by MtDNA haplogroup. It is also recently live because of white cells that should not be there in vitro.

White cells should lyse after hours: it is a process used by pathologists to help determine time of death. These cells were never in vivo. Indeed the EM sample white cells survived years in vitro , which pathologists say is not explicable by science,

You are Intellectually trapped by your faith.
please stop pretending to be a voice of science or reason until you actually study them.
And I suggest you accept the verdict of the amply qualified forensic scientists until you are qualified to comment.

 

[Frank Robert]

Yoj are the most unscientific person I have had a discussion with here.
You dismiss evidence out of hand , without even study, because of your faith alone.

Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence

Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence​

The phrase "medical miracle" is a newsroom cliche. It means a situation in which a person makes an unexpected recovery despite great odds or a pessimistic prognosis.​

​

Yet often the phrase is used much more broadly to describe a seemingly supernatural or paranormal healing or curing event such as faith healing. While to many people it may seem obvious that a miracle has occurred, in reality such miracles are rarely as impressive as they seem...​

 

[Mountainmike]

Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence

Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence​

The phrase "medical miracle" is a newsroom cliche. It means a situation in which a person makes an unexpected recovery despite great odds or a pessimistic prognosis.​

​

Yet often the phrase is used much more broadly to describe a seemingly supernatural or paranormal healing or curing event such as faith healing. While to many people it may seem obvious that a miracle has occurred, in reality such miracles are rarely as impressive as they seem...​

I get that "medical miracles not supported by evidence" is a statement of your faith.
And you will use confirmation bias to search for articles that say it.

Science disagrees, in particular a branch of science called forensic science.

One day you might research evidence THEN comment.
As a scientist would.
You might even respect the fact that the pathologists and cardioliogists involved in the phenomena I suggest you look at, know far more than you ever will about medicine, science, forensic science and pathology. They are expert witnesses in criminal trials to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". You discount their evidence without reading it first, because you dislike the conclusion!

On the other hand there is no evidence whatsoever of structures before the simplest cell we know which is hideously complex.
All the rest is speculation, and yet, you believe it in absence of evidence.

Do not pretend you speak the voice of science. You do not.

 

[Frank Robert]

I get that "medical miracles not supported by evidence" is a statement of your faith.
And you will use confirmation bias to search for articles that say it.

Science is not based on faith. First of all I believe that there are miraculous cures, i.e. cures that we cannot explain, such as cancers spontaneously disappearing. This week there was a case of HIV disappearing that joined many other HIV miraculous cures. There are claims of miraculous cures are claimed in all religious. In addition, a professor who I worked with in grad school studied and worked with and studied Shamans in Africa. Before her death she opened a clinic in Nairobi using both modern and traditional (shaman) Afican treatments.

My claim stands that Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence.

Science disagrees, in particular a branch of science called forensic science.

I am making claims about evidence. Some forensic evidence can meet the criteria of scientific evidence, most forensic evidence can not be classified as scientific.

One day you might research evidence THEN comment.
As a scientist would

I have already. Once again you are projecting.

Is Much of Forensic Science Unreliable? | Legal Resources​

A report from the National Academy of Sciences says much of what passes for forensic science does not meet minimal scientific standards.

"Juries are awed by forensic science in the courtroom. Fingerprint comparison, DNA, handwriting analysis, ballistics,blood-splatter, shoe print comparison, etc. Prosecutors across the county depend upon this evidence to obtain convictions and juries are conditioned by television shows, like CSI, to expect it. However, a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences says much of what passes for forensic "science" does not meet minimal scientific standards. Yet, when forensic scientists testify in court they are often shamefully overconfident about their "scientific" findings."​

Do not pretend you speak the voice of science. You do not.

Another projection. You need to follow your own advice.